From: "James F.Hranicky" <jfh@...>
Date: 2003-08-27T07:22:51+09:00
Subject: Re: Array#uniq!

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 05:52:06 +0900
Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:

> I've thought about these issues, too... I usd to be bitten frequently
> by the nil-return bug^H^H^H feature. But then I just fell out of the
> habit of chaining certain methods.
> 
> I never use the fact that they return nil.

Hmmm...what if they could take an argument that allowed the user to 
explicitly return the receiver? :

	arr.sort!(1).uniq!(1).each { |e| ... }

Kinda busy...what about

	a = Array.new
	a.bang_returns_receiver = true

or

	a = Array.new
	a.bang_returns_nil_if_receiver_not_modified = true

making the return of the receiver the default (better method names would
be good :->).

Ultimately, I guess I still don't see how modifying the receiver is more
dangerous than making a copy unless somehow

	a.sort!.uniq!.each { |e| ... }

would give you a different list of elements than

	a.sort.uniq.each { |e| ... }

OTOH, I haven't run into a case where making copies has given me any 
problems.

Jim